W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:26 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0ff0ceb2c9afe46bf956677fa9f2843eo1D9XV08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F3A2A66.2010906@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include
an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy,
we have added them.

I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and 

As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations.
You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes 
for IVPof.
This could also be encoded with attributes.


On 02/14/2012 09:18 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity.
> I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense.  If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of.
> I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML.
> --James

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 09:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:12 UTC